|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Luke and Matthews geneologies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
quote:(Please forgive my interjections) --The statement is excellent gospel truth. --Matthew, demonstrates the reality of the risen Christ as a King-Royal, amongst other excellencies, the son of David/Abraham royal.--Luke, demonstrates our Christ begotten through all humanity, as a humiliated yet perfect, just, and righteous man. He repeatedly calls Christ the Son of Man, albeit of a virgin. --They both go beyond wine and brandy, depending on the level that one demonstrates the reality of the risen Christ in an evil Darwinistic world. Thus, if I am risen with Christ in Luke's perspective: methinks, I'd demonstrate exceeding compassion, patience toward men, longsuffering, gentleness, etc. My empathy would reach to man's lowest and most miserable state; his hunger, nakedness, etc., as would Christ the physician. If I be risen with Christ in Matthew's perspective: my quickened spirit would rule with love; governing the faculties, affections, will, etc. I would courageously lead myself and others like a lion; trample my sinful nature, zealously pray, and have the hearts of men close to my own. If I be risen with Christ in Mark's gospel, I'd be strong, humble, busy, occupied, and straitway doing the ministry, like a young ox or calf set to the plow: redeeming time, saving souls, watching, waiting, etc. What a fool (for Christ) I'd be to get the job done. If I be risen with Christ in John's gospel, I'd be metaphysically atuned to the Son of God: my eagle's eye, my meat, my drink, my ongoing resurrection, growing and rejoicing in life amidst the melancholy world, a world which like a vision of John, will soon be destroyed when the Lamb-like Son of God returns as the true God, etc. Thus, the gospel-objective is, as you well say: to be risen with Christ -- to demonstrate the risen Christ in all redemptive power feasible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
And yet this "excellent gospel truth" comes from one of those evil darwinists....
Perhaps evolution ain't the enemy after all....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kolyahu Inactive Member |
quote:B"H Messiah? If that is anything to go on, what would you say if I could show you that over 20 prophetic texts matched little Elian Gonzales, and his saga? What if I were to show you the posibility that he is a direct descendant of king David through the Nazarene and his wife Miriam (Mary) of Magdalena? Literally matched, verbatim, is he the Messiah? The returned one or the first to come, however you'd care to look at it. The New Test. does state that the Messiah will have a NEW NAME upon this coming visitation (Rev. 3:12 last words, Rev. 19:10-13 and The Gosels all concur:"Many shall come in My name, saying 'I am he', Do Not Follow Them."). If he came as the mercy of G-d the first time, the books state He comes in wrath this time to judge the nations. Yet, not one of the religions addresses this. Perhaps as the Nazarene stated, "Satan is he that deceiveth the entire world." We've got some major problems if my hunch is right.When the boy finds out who it was that betrayed his mother and him, what do you think his reactions will be, given that he may be the next in line to the dictatorship of a nuclear power called Cuba. What? You didn't know they were nuclear capable? Now you know exactly why we did not invade. The ones who betrayed him were Bill clinton, Janet Reno, Fidel, and Pope John Paul II you can take that to the bank.The same ones who were behind 9/11. [Al Qeda is CIA, always have been.] You have been deceived. Ask any vietnam Vet if that can happen in such a big way, they'll not tell you any lie. Tis unfortunately true. So, just because scripture can match an individual does not mean they are the messiah. Rav Akiva thought that some one else was the messiah. But I ask you this, no matter who the Messiah is what is more important? That you think he'll save you from death or that you should die to the ways of This gentile way of life? Did not the Nazarene state specifically,"To enter into LIFE, OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS."? Did he say you can pick & choose which ones apply to you n me? Don't go spouting off about the church's understandings of salvation to others without listening first. You never know what you will learn. Life to the mighty one of Israel is not the same thing as what you, in your western mindset, understand as life. You don't even understand the Judaism of the Nazarene, I'm not mad at you butI am fed up with the traditions that have blinded so many for so long. Learn the way of Light. Your Nazarene was teaching the laws of YaHVeH, as IF he were the bible itself. 'The Word' is the Messiah, not the man. A man is not the Creator, but what no one has accepted was that Jesus is not god, his words ARE, that IS truth, because it was the Spirit of the Hebrew Bible doing the talking, and God and His word are one.. Only the bible can say those things about itself. The point Jesus was making was that if you become the Hebrew Bible, in all that you are, It will speak through YOU too, The Word of G-d IN YOU, i.e.;The messiah IN YOU. You talk of sacrifice? Make one of your own, the Jewish people have been doing this for 40 centuries, hoping that we'll come out of our illusions, and delusions, and give up our idolatries, every last one of them. There will be no peace til that occurs. As far as I'm concerned, Elian ['El Leon' in Spanish; 'Elyon' in Hebrew:// check the meanings]may very well be the Messiah. What does the Holy Spirit tell you about the fact that he was drawn out of the waters as was Moses, and betrayed on Easter Sabbath evening by govt. troops with weapons drawn? (and no, that ain't all) Shalom Alechem
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
quote: LOL. This is a far cry from a geneology Funk. Actually its not a geneology at all. The Jews didn't have matrilinial lineages. Jesus came to crush heads of snakes? Did the snakes come to bruise his heel? To say this is a messienic verse would be based on flawed reasoning. The answer to this lies in the definition of enmity;enmity \En"mi*ty\, n.; pl. Enmities. , OF. enemisti['e]. See Enemy, and cf. Amity. 1. The quality of being an enemy; hostile or unfriendly disposition.2. A state of opposition; hostility. The Gen 3:15 verse refers to the curse God put apon man and the serpant not the coming messiah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
quote: This is not so. As a matter of Without a father he couldn't have a royal lineage.
quote: Thats funny. Mary's name isn't mentioned anywhere in the verse...can you point her out to me? Actually could you look through the entire bible and try and find one mention of her parents? Oh, on top of that explain to me how you could have a matrinlinial Kingship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6128 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: You have made a fairly common mistake in assuming that the Bible here contains a pretty obvious mistake. Note the very preciseness with which Matthew 1:17 is worded.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Here are the three sets of fourteen generations as stated in this verse. 1. From Abraham to DavidAbraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judas, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Booz, Obed, Jesse, and David. Fourteen generations. 2. From David until the carrying away into BabylonDavid, Solomon, Rogoam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias, Manasses, Amon, and Josias. Fourteen generations. 3. From the carrying away into Babylon unto ChristJechonias, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, and Jesus. Fourteen generations. Notice that the Bible does not claim that their are fourty-two generations total. It simply presents the three sets of fourteen generations.
quote: Ver. 23...
being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph; who had espoused Mary before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph {y} may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews {z} that he "that brings up, and not he that begets, is called thefather, '' or parent; of which they give various instances {a} in Joseph, inMichal, and in Pharaoh's daughter. Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli;for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mt 1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, &c. till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell {b} us of one, "that saw Mary the daughter of Eli in theshades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere {c}, the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.'' By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant:however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews {d}, that "the family of the mother is not called a family.'' {y} T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1. Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Zech. xii 10. &xiii. 7. {z} Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1. {a} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1. {b} T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3. {c} Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4. {d} Juchasin, fol. 55. 2. From An Exposition Of The New Testament vol. 1, By John Gill, D.D., 1851
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
quote: And you have taken the ridiculous position of defending matthew's numeroglical decent.
quote: Which is still inaccurate.
quote: Clearly you don't realize that Yechoniah was a cursed king.
quote: Oh God here we.....
quote: where on earth do you get this crappola? Please show me in the bible where i mentions Mary's father. Christian you don't seem to realize that women can't provide lineage!
quote: LOL. No it doesn't. Matthew was deep into numerology. Hence the repeating sevens.
[quote][qs] Ver. 23...being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph; who had espoused Mary before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph {y} may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews {z} that he[/quote] This is absolutely ridiculous.
quote: Of course it doesn't even say that in the scriptures....did the early church father's hold this notion??? Nope. wonder why.
quote: There isn't even a shread of evidence for this ANY where in the bible. Sorry a child without a father doesn't take the line of the mother's father. It never worked that way. Ok i am not even going to respond to the rest of this as its not at all based in truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6128 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Please read my post again after reading the post to which I was replying. This may help you to understand the meaning of the term, "quote."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6128 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: Your mere claim of the ridiculous nature of the statement does not in any way prove or disprove the validity of that statement.
quote: I will answer this argument shortly, but I must first seek clarification of a few of your comments.
quote: How do you know that the early church father's did not hold to this notion? How much of their original writings have you read? Did you read English translations or did you obtain copies still in the original languages. Have you checked the actual existing documents to make sure that the copies you read were not altered? And did you verify that the documents now extant have not been themselves modified for some political purpose?
quote: I will answer this statement soon.
quote: Perhaps you could explain how it did work.
quote: Again, your mere claim does not in any way prove or disprove the validity of the statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Notice that the Bible does state 3 sets of 14. 3 x 14 = 42. You can't have it both ways. You cannot have 3 sets of 14 and not have 42. This is silly. Secondly, you have to list one name twice-- David's-- to get 14 names in each set. This is odd, to say the least. Third, Chronicles 3 lists 18 generations between David and the Babylonian captivity, not fourteen. You can't have it both ways. One book or the other is wrong. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
Does it mean what it says and say what it means?
-Shiloh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
quote: i am still waiting for W fortenbarry to find a single reference to any of his claims in the bible. Nothing you have said has substantiated any of your claims Forten. Therefore your entire argument IS ridiculous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
quote: Considering you can't back up anything you have stated your position IS ridiculous.
quote: No you won't.
quote: Have you ever bothered to read their works? I know they wouldn't have thought this because it was contrary to the prophecies of Christ AND to jewish laws of decent.
quote: Again, no you won't.
quote: IT COULDN'T HAVE JESUS IS A FRAUD.
quote: well is that the pot calling the kettle black.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6465 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
quote: Hi John, iconoclast has suggested elsewhere i may have left this hanging and not responded.I will therefore repeat my explanation. 1. The messiah had to be a descendent of David. 2.mary was a descendent of David, as explained in Matthews geneology ,which is Mary's geneology not Josephs 3. jesus was Mary's son. 4. Therefore Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. All the other stuff is irrelevant! All the best
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
quote: as wrong as it was the first time?
quote: Through Solomon.
[quote]2.mary was a descendent of David, as explained in Matthews geneology ,which is Mary's geneology not Josephs[quote]
wrong on two accounts first women can't provide lineage second there is no evidence this is Mary's lineage. If Mary was of the tribe of david why did she perform task in the temple? That was the job of the levites! Her cousin Elizabeth was a levite as was her uncle! What does this mean? This means the BROTHER of her uncle was also a levite! Try again Judge and stop selling snake oil!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024